Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jack Duckworth/1

Jack Duckworth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. There has been a genuine attempt to resolve the issues regarding the article not meeting GA criteria; however, issues regarding prose quality have not been resolved; issues regarding broad coverage have not been resolved; issues regarding the lead not being an adequate summary of the topic have not been resolved. Article does not meet GA criteria 1(a) & (b); 3(a) & (b). Other criteria have not been examined. Recommendation is that the article is further worked on, especially regarding copyediting, and submitted for GA review again when issues have been dealt with. SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the recent GA review of this article was to say the least cursory and have therefore nominated for community reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Points:[reply]

One dead link: [1] Done
Prose: In the January 1985 issue of current affairs magazine Third Way Magazine, the slated Coronation Street for their attitude of unemployment, stating it seemed not to be a problem because Jack was an "acknowledged rogue". Not done

- Replaced with In the January 1985 issue of current affairs magazine Third Way Magazine, the author slated Coronation Street for their attitude of unemployment, stating it seemed not to be a problem because Jack was an "acknowledged rogue". This is extremely badly written.

John Harold "Jack" Duckworth is a long-standing fictional character from the British ITV soap opera Coronation Street, a long-running serial drama about working class life in the fictional town of Weatherfield. He is played by actor William Tarmey. The character debuted onscreen during the episode airing on 28 November 1979. Surely this should be "was" as the character is now dead?
Casting section is entirely about the actor leaving or thinking about leaving the show. Nothing about how the part was created.
Character development: This ection seems a little thin and one-dimensional. Done
Dorothy Hobson in her book Soap opera stated that marriages never seem to last in the genre, Surely the book is called Soap Oera, i.e. capitalised. Done
Channel Five's soap opera reporting website Holy Soap brand Jack's most memorable moments as...' Surely "brands"? Done
Lead does not fully sunmmarise the article. Done
Lots of stray sentences, which should be consolidated into paragraphs. DoneJezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the above points merging sentances, used the archive link for the dead link, corrected grammar points, Character development has been merged with characterisation, the section which should have been in the development section anyway going by the MoS for fictional characters. One problem however is that the suggestion about the opening line in the lead, if it is changed to was because he is dead, then that suggests he's was a living person, also we use is because it's a work of fiction, so referring to him in the out world context, which is used when approaching the writing of ficional works, he will always be a fictional character. As the character was created before internet documentation, there is nothing for his creation, which is why I thought it be better for the section to hold the casting header alone.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that the character of Jack Duckworth was created "before internet documentation" is irrelevant to providing sources. There have been countless books written about Corrie, that is real books, printed on paper. As it stands the casting section is inaccurately named and is in fact about the demise of the cahracter.

As to the tense in the lead (which is still rather short and does not fully summarise the article), we still have a confusion of tense, however you justify it. the first two sentences are present tense, then we have past tense, before returning to present tense, a deviation to past perfect simple and then past. Most confusing.

Character developnmment is still very thin, mostly actually describing how ITV publicity and the press describe him. If this section is to deserve the name it should show the development of the character from 1979 to 2010. Presently this article needs a lot of work. Check out articles like Pauline Fowler to see the standard to which you should be aiming. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how long do I have to include all of that then? I know the standard btw, having written half of them. :p (Thanks for this proper review though.) RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a community reassesemnt so others might chip in. How long is a piece of string? I think Geometry Guy would close this reassessment if there was no progress in a few weeks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'm keen to get going. I've added casting info from one of the books I have. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that. One of my flaws however is correcting the grammar, for the "Third Way Magazine" quote you've flagged, how would you make it read?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at editing the Third Way sentence. - JuneGloom Talk 15:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, lol. Also filled out the ref a bit more. - JuneGloom Talk 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Darlin! :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Jezhotwells mentioned me above, I will add a brief comment. Community reassessments nominally remain open for about two weeks, and any uninvolved editor can close the discussion. However, community reassessment, like all GA processes, is intended to be article friendly (which should also mean "editor friendly"!) in that as long as the reassessment is leading to article improvement, it is probably good to keep going. When more time than a few weeks is needed (e.g. to find new sources), it may be better to close and renominate at GAN once the article is ready. Geometry guy 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no need to close it. I can do this, found more development info for his relationships too, the development section is thin so I'll expand it over the next few days.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]